Meeting minutes
<zakim> Date: October 28 2021
CFC: Accept Lang valid tag, and form non-empty name rules
wilco: two went to cfc. don't think I got any objections.
Wilco: two +1s good to go
<Wilco> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept Lang valid tag, and form non-empty name rules
Resolution: Accept Lang valid tag, and form non-empty name rules
CFC: language input aspect update
<Wilco> https://
<Wilco> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept language input aspect update
Wilco: all approvals, can go in
Resolution: Accept language input aspect update
Follow-up on First attempt at defining implementations
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: ok with everyone to review on the pull request?
trevor: if we do all the editing on github and then do survey. is it all cfc then?
Wilco: it would be cfc.
<kathyeng> jennifer: minimal category is ok
<kathyeng> daniel: not opposed to "minimal" term
<kathyeng> wilco: there is an implementor who wants the minimal category
JennC: Minimal category is ok
dmontalvo: not opposed to "minimal" term
Wilco: here is an implementor who wants the minimal category
Wilco: what to do with approved and proposed rules with implementation
kathyeng: makes sense that approved rules would show list of implementations. where it says "may", we don't currently list any of them.
kathyeng: when we are proposing a rule - we need at least one implementation to get to approved. when it's approved, we're not listing the implementations that got us to "approved"?
Wilco: I think we are. but we don't do it for previous versions
Wilco: doesn't seem useful. just look at latest version
Wilco: in our policy, we need a complete implementation
Wilco: before we send it to AG
kathyeng: are we keeping history somewhere?
Wilco: no
kathyeng: would be useful to have background
Wilco: github has history, do we need more? do we want that level of detail
kathyeng: make sense to have implementation section for rules moving forward, at least implementations that got the rule approvied
Wilco: section already exists, but is different from changes
Wilco: do the implementations need to report the accessibility requirements?
Wilco: for example, my tool reports a rule as a best practice, where ACT says it's a violation of WCAG. is that a rule we want to say is consistent?
kathyeng: in one way, it is recording the issue
Wilco: do we want to enforce in some way that an implementation reports in a consistent way to what the rule says? we haven't so far
Wilco: as far as harmonization goes, it seems like something we should consider
Wilco: implementation tests image buttons in the same way they test buttons - it may not fail 1.1.1.
trevor: not as strong as failing a requirement.
Wilco: the big problem that's created from getting this wrong, is that the numbers can look quite different.
Wilco: if tool a reports a criteria under one , but tool b reports it under several.
Wilco: message from mike gower at ibm. considering adding only success criteria to each issue
Wilco: can be confusing to see one fix solving more than one problem.
<trevor> 0
Wilco: poll - +1 if in favor of adding a requirement for consistent mapping for success criteria
+1
<kathyeng> +1
<dmontalvo> +1
Wilco: we need the implementors to be on board with what it means to be consistent
Wilco: follow up question - is that a thing we want to do for the highest level of consistency
<JennC> +1